the new old indian
Post on 13-Mar-2016
245 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Contents
Bibliography 4
Preface 5
Part I: The Old Indian
1 Gheorghiu’s 4...e4 7
2 1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6 3 Ìc3 e5 without 4 Ìf3 39
3 Preventing e2-e4 with ...Íf5 72
Part II: Completing the Repertoire
4 2 Ìf3 d6 without 3 c4 108
5 White’s Other Second Moves 130
Index of Variations 159
Index of Complete Games 160
5
Preface
In this book I will show you some fascinating new ideas that have been developed
by modern grandmasters in the Old Indian Defence. Studying them will give you a
very practical approach with Black after 1 d4. The main move order of our sug-
gested repertoire is 1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6, but then to navigate away from the classical
Old Indian lines with ...Ìbd7 and ...e5. The concept of this book is that on the one
hand it offers a complete, independent repertoire for Black, and on the other hand
King’s Indian players may use our flexible move order to avoid some undesirable
systems.
I have played a lot of these fresh lines myself. The biggest highlight was a win
against Korchnoi in 2009. Among other grandmasters who are experts on this
modern handling of the Old Indian, there are Vladimir Georgiev, Andrei Volokitin,
Zahar Efimenko, Igor Glek and Anna Muzychuk. I had some interesting conversa-
tions and undertook some analysis on the opening with them, mostly during the
Olympiad in Khanty-Mansiysk last year. I want to thank them all for sharing their
opinions. I also did some analysis with Anatoly Karpov and Vladislav Tkachiev – not experts in this particular opening, but great players. I thank especially Anatoly
Evgenyevich, who opposed me in a thematic blitz match with our opening, giving
me the possibility to feel and benefit from his level of positional understanding.
Our repertoire will focus on active piece play, control of the centre, in particu-
lar the e4-square, and we have in store some surprises for unsuspecting oppo-
nents! Moreover, you won’t be required to learn endless theory playing these lines.
Why? Well, simply, sometimes there is not yet a lot of existing theory.
There are many unexplored paths in this opening, even within the critical lines.
So this book contains a considerable amount of original analysis, with emphasis
on the critical positions. Of course these ideas need to be tested further in practice
and that’s where you come in. I very much hope that these secret weapons will
give the club player an excellent opening repertoire against 1 d4, and will also
prove useful for aspiring masters or even grandmasters. Moreover, I hope you will
learn from my experience with the New Old Indian and enjoy playing creative
The New Old Indian
6
chess in original positions as much as I do.
Finally, my thanks go to my co-author, Eduard Prokuronov, for all his invaluable
help throughout the project.
Alexander Cherniaev,
London,
April 2011
7
Chapter One Gheorghiu’s 4...e4
1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6 3 Ìc3 e5 4 Ìf3 e4!?
W________W [rhb1kgW4] [0p0WDp0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDWDW] [WDP)pDWD] [DWHWDNDW] [P)WDP)P)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
This is quite an unusual defence,
but one which gives Black immediate
activity. Black plays aggressively from
the start and tries to obtain a space
advantage. His play will be in the cen-
tre and on the kingside.
In Belfort in 1988, the English
Grandmaster Jonathan Speelman suc-
cessfully employed 4...e4 against Kas-
parov who responded with 5 Ìg5. I
have an excellent record with this line
and have played it against grandmas-
ters Victor Korchnoi, Simon Williams
and Danny Gormally. I am now happy
to bring to a wider audience my analy-
sis and ideas in these lines.
In the 2009 Staunton Memorial
Tournament in London, Korchnoi re-
plied with 5 Ìd2, a move suggested by
Geller who gave it an exclamation
mark, but the resulting positions are
far from clear and require more analy-
sis. Williams and Gormally played 5
Ìg5, but after 5...Ëe7, one of Florin
Gheorghiu’s ideas from the early 1970s,
both were on unfamiliar ground and
were unable to prove any advantage.
In general White has three kinds of
strategy concerning the advanced
pawn on e4:
a) To attack the pawn in every way
possible, with both knights, Ëc2 and
the undermining g4 – see Games 1, 2, 4
and 6.
b) To exchange the pawn with f2-f3,
as we’ll see in Game 5.
c) To ignore it before finishing de-
velopment, as White does in Games 3
and 7.
The first method allows a sharp bat-
The New Old Indian
8
tle to begin at an early stage in the
opening, whereas the exchange of
pawns leads to a nonstandard struc-
ture. Here the basic resource that Black
has in the centre, ...c7-c5, can lead to a
structure similar to the Sämisch Be-
noni, with the difference that White
has a c-pawn instead of a g-pawn. Fi-
nally, the preservation of the pawn
structure in centre usually results in
White playing on the queen’s flank and
Black on the king’s.
Game 1 Z.Gyimesi-A.Volokitin German League 2005
1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6 3 Ìc3 e5 4 Ìf3 e4 5
Ìg5 Ëe7 6 Ëc2 Ìc6!?
W________W [rDbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhWD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDWD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)QDP)P)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
Black immediately attacks the d4-
pawn. This interesting continuation
leads to a sharp struggle linked with a
pawn sacrifice. Black obtains some
compensation for the pawn, although
it’s questionable whether it’s quite
enough.
7 d5
A critical advance, but in practice
White has often preferred:
a) To exchange the central pawns is
absolutely not dangerous for Black: 7
Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 8 Ìxe4 Ìxd4 9 Ëd3 Ìc6
10 Ìc3 Íe6 11 b3 0-0-0 and Black was
ahead in development in F.De Andres
Gonalons-F.Ribeiro, San Sebastian
1996.
b) After 7 e3 Black is committed to
playing 7...Íf5. Here White has a wide
choice of moves, but most of them are
not dangerous for Black:
b1) The immediate 8 f3? is bad due
to 8...Ìxd4.
b2) Another way to break through
the e4-outpost is 8 g4 Íxg4 9 Íg2,
which leads to mass exchanges on e4:
9...Íf5 10 Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 11 Íxe4 Íxe4
12 Ëxe4 Ëxe4 13 Ìxe4 Êd7 14 Êf1 f5
15 Ìc3 Íe7 16 Íd2 f4 17 Êe2 Îhf8
with an even position, V.Lazarev-
M.Tratar, Trieste 2005.
b3) 8 Ìh3 Ëd7 9 a3 Ìe7 10 Ìg5 (a
time-wasting return, but White de-
cided to attack the e4-pawn again, as it
is not directly protected) 10...c6! 11 d5
Îc8 12 dxc6 Ìxc6 13 b3 h6 14 Ìh3 g5
15 Íb2 Ìe5 16 Îd1 Íg7 saw Black
taking the upper hand in J.Lautier-
B.Damljanovic, Spanish Team Champi-
onship 2004.
b4) 8 h4 was Lautier’s next try, but
8...h6 9 Ìh3 g5 10 Ìd5 Ëd8 11 Íd2
Íg7 12 0-0-0 Ëd7 13 Íe2 Ìxd5 14
cxd5 Ìxd4 15 exd4 e3 16 Íd3 Íxd3 17
Ëxd3 exd2+ 18 Ëxd2 0-0-0 gave Black
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
9
good play in J.Lautier-I.Glek, Corsica
(rapid) 2005.
b5) 8 Ìd5 Ìxd5 9 cxd5 Ëxg5 10
dxc6 b6 11 h4 Ëg6 12 d5 Íe7 13 Íd2
0-0 14 Íc3 Íg4 15 Íe2 Íxe2 16 Ëxe2
Íf6 and after exchanging the bishops,
the d5-pawn became a target in
P.Meister-J.Zwanzger, German League
2007.
b6) 8 d5 Ìb8 9 f3 allows White to
gain an extra pawn by replacing Black’s
e-pawn with his f-pawn.
W________W [rhWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDPDbHW] [WDPDpDWD] [DWHW)PDW] [P)QDWDP)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
However, the resulting structure is
good for Black as both doubled e-
pawns become a target: 9...Ìbd7 10
Ìgxe4 (10 Ìb5 Ìc5 11 b4 Ìd3+ 12
Íxd3 exd3 13 Ëa4 Íd7 14 Ìxc7+ Êd8
15 Ìb5 Ìxd5 16 e4 h6 is unclear)
10...Íxe4 11 fxe4 (or 11 Ìxe4 Ìxe4 12
fxe4 g6 13 Íd3 Íg7 14 Íd2 Ëh4+ 15
g3 Ëg5 16 0-0-0 0-0 17 Îdf1 a5 which
favoured Black in H.Mecking-R.Disconzi
da Silva, Guarapuava 2006) 11...g6 12
Ìb5 Ëd8 13 Íd2 (if 13 b4 a6 14 Ìc3
a5! 15 bxa5 Îxa5 16 Íe2 Íg7 17 0-0
0-0 18 Îb1 Îa7 19 a4 Îe8 20 Êh1 Ìc5
and Black has slightly the better
chances, V.Lazarev-A.Strikovic, Lisbon
2001) 13...Íh6!? 14 Íd3 a6 15 Ìc3
Ìg4 with counterplay.
c) 7 Ìd5 leads to a forced continua-
tion, where Black’s king loses castling
rights, but White’s pieces are insuffi-
ciently developed: 7...Ìxd4! 8 Ëa4+
Íd7 9 Ìxc7+ Êd8 10 Ëd1 Êxc7 11
Ëxd4 h6 12 Ìh3 g5 and Black is better,
Z.Mamedjarova-B.Savchenko, Gjovik
2008.
d) With 7 Íe3 White prepares Ìd5
ideas, while keeping both the d4-pawn
and g5-knight protected. Then 7...Íf5 8
Ìd5 Ìxd5 (better than 8...Ìxd4 9
Íxd4 Ìxd5 10 cxd5 Ëxg5 11 e3 when
White is better, D.Rajkovic-S.Saric, Kra-
gujevac 2009) 9 cxd5 Ìd8 10 g4 Íxg4
11 Ëxe4 (11 Ìxe4 c6 gives White an
edge) 11...Íd7 12 Îc1 Îc8 13 Íg2 h6
14 Ëxe7+ Íxe7 15 Ìe4 f5 16 Ìc3 Íf6
17 f4 c5 produced a roughly level game
in V.Shishkin-N.Firman, Krakow 2007.
7...Ìd4
W________W [rDbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDPDWHW] [WDPhpDWD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)QDP)P)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
8 Ëb1
Somewhat more critical than 8
Ëd1?! Ìf5 (avoiding the fiendish
The New Old Indian
10
8...Ëe5? 9 Ìcxe4! Ìxe4 10 f4 which
favours White) 9 g4 (or 9 e3 h6 10 Ìh3
g5 11 Ìg1 Íg7 12 Ìge2 0-0 13 Ìg3
Ìh4 and Black is better, M.Gavilan
Diaz-A.Strikovic, Malaga 2009) 9...Ìh4
10 Ëd4 Ìxg4 11 Ëxe4 (11 Ìgxe4 Ìe5!
gives Black good play) 11...Íf5 12
Ëxe7+ Íxe7 with a slight advantage
for Black.
8...e3!
Instead 8...h6 9 Ìgxe4 (or 9 e3 hxg5
10 exd4 g4 11 Íg5! Íf5 12 g3 g6 13
Ëc1 when White has slightly the better
chances) 9...Ìxe4 10 Ìxe4 Íf5 11 f3
doesn’t give Black full compensation
for the pawn.
W________W [rDbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDPDWHW] [WDPhwDWD] [DWHW0WDW] [P)wDP)P)] [$QGWIBDR] W--------W
9 fxe3 Ìf5 10 e4 Ìh4 11 Íf4
In this critical position, White also
has:
a) 11 Ìf3 Ìg6 12 g3 Ìd7 gives
Black decent compensation thanks to
his use of the e5-square.
b) The latest practice shows good
results for White after 11 g3!?, but the
total number of games is very small
and much more testing is required.
Moreover, there are several possible
improvements for Black after 11...Ìg6
and now:
W________W [rDbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhnD] [DWDPDWHW] [WDPDPDWD] [DWHWDW)W] [P)WDPDW)] [$QGWIBDR] W--------W
b1) 12 Íg2 Ìe5 (another way of
setting up the pieces deserves definite
attention: 12...Ëd8!? followed by
...Íe7, ...c6, with the idea of ...Ëb6, and
...Ìg4: for example, 13 0-0 Íe7 14 Ëc2
0-0 15 Ìf3 c6 16 b3 Ìg4, giving Black
good play on the dark squares; ...Íf6,
...Îe8 and ...Ëb6 may follow) 13 Ëc2 g6
14 Ìf3 Ìfd7? 15 Ìb5! Ëd8 16 Íg5
Ìxf3+ 17 exf3 Ëxg5 18 Ìxc7+ with a
large advantage for White, A.Moise-
enko-Z.Jovanovic, European Champion-
ship, Rijeka 2010.
b2) 12 Íh3 Ìe5 (12...Íxh3!? 13
Ìxh3 Ìe5 deserved attention, keeping
the possibility of long castling: for ex-
ample, 14 Ëc2 0-0-0 15 0-0 h5 16 Íg5
Ëd7 17 Ìf2 Íe7 18 Ëd2 Ìfg4 would
have been quite unclear) 13 Íxc8 Îxc8
14 Ëc2 Ìfd7 15 Ìh3 h6 16 b3 g6 17
Íe3 a6 18 Ìf2 h5 19 h3 Íh6 20 Íxh6
Îxh6 21 Ëd2 Îh8 22 0-0 h4 23 g4 Ìf6
24 Ìd3 Ìh7 25 Ëf4 gave White the
better chances in E.Najer-P.Haba, Ger-
man League 2009.
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
11
11...Ìg6
11...Ìh5 12 Íd2 is a touch better
for White.
12 e3 h6 13 Ìf3 Ìxf4!
Better than 13...Ìh5?! 14 Ëc1 (14
g3 gives White an edge too) 14...Ìh4
15 Ìxh4 Ëxh4+ 16 g3 Ëd8 17 Íe2
with advantage to White.
14 exf4 g5!
W________W [rDbDkgW4] [0p0W1pDW] [WDW0WhW0] [DWDPDW0W] [WDPDP)WD] [DWHWDNDW] [P)WDWDP)] [$QDWIBDR] W--------W
Black must try to exploit White’s
temporarily-overextended position.
15 c5!
Instead 15 Íd3 gxf4! 16 Ëc1 Ìg4!
(if 16...Îg8 17 Ëxf4 Îxg2 18 0-0-0 Îg4
19 Ëd2 Ìd7 20 Ìb5 and White has
slightly the better chances) 17 Ëxf4 h5
gives Black decent compensation.
15...a6!
Correct, as 15...gxf4 16 Íb5+ Íd7
17 Íxd7+ Ëxd7 18 cxd6 cxd6 19 Ëc1
Ëg4 20 0-0 would have been excellent
for White.
16 Íd3?
The best approach was 16 Ëc2! gxf4
17 Ëa4+ when 17...Íd7 (17...Ìd7 18
Ìb5 gives White the better chances
too) 18 c6 bxc6 19 dxc6 Íe6 20 Íd3
Íg7 21 0-0 0-0 22 Îae1 favours White.
16...gxf4 17 Ëc1 Ìd7?
Better is 17...Ìg4! 18 Ëxf4 h5 19
cxd6 cxd6 20 h3 Íh6 21 Ëg3 Ìe3 with
compensation.
18 cxd6 Ëxd6 19 0-0 Íg7 20 Êh1 Ìe5
21 Íb5+ Êe7
W________W [rDbDWDW4] [Dp0WipgW] [pDW1WDW0] [DBDPhWDW] [WDWDP0WD] [DWHWDNDW] [P)WDWDP)] [$W!WDRDK] W--------W
22 Ëxf4?
Returning the favour. Instead 22
Íe2! Ìxf3 23 Íxf3 Íe5 24 Ìa4 gives
White an edge.
22...axb5 23 Ìxe5?
23 Ìxb5 would have been very un-
clear: for example, 23...Ìg6 24 Ëc1
Ëb6! 25 Ìxc7 Îa5 26 d6+ Êxd6 27
Îd1+ Êe7 28 Ìd5+ Îxd5 29 Îxd5 Íe6
30 Îd2 Îc8 with by now a slight ad-
vantage for Black.
23...Íxe5 24 Ëxf7+ Êd8 25 Ìxb5 Ëe7
26 Ëf2 Îa6!
Obtaining control over b6.
27 d6?
This breakthrough idea doesn’t
work here, although after 27 Îac1!?
Îg8 (White’s idea was to meet 27...Îf6?
with 28 d6!) 28 d6 Íxd6 Black was bet-
ter in any case.
The New Old Indian
12
27...Íxd6
Also possible was 27...cxd6!? 28
Îac1 Íd7 29 Ìc7 Îc6 30 Ìd5 Ëg5 and
White’s compensation is insufficient.
28 Îad1 Íd7 29 Ìxd6 Îxd6 30 Ëa7
Íc8! 31 Ëa5 Îe8 32 h3 Ëe5
W________W [WDbirDWD] [Dp0WDWDW] [WDW4WDW0] [!WDW1WDW] [WDWDPDWD] [DWDWDWDP] [P)WDWDPD] [DWDRDRDK] W--------W
Black has fully consolidated his po-
sition and went on to win.
33 Ëa4 Íd7 34 Ëa8+ Íc8 35 Ëa4
Îxd1 36 Îxd1+ Êe7 37 Îd5 Ëf4! 38
Ëd4 Êf7 39 Îc5 Îe7 40 Îc3 Ëf1+ 41
Êh2 Ëf4+ 42 Êg1 Îd7 43 Ëc4+ Êe7 44
Îf3 Îd1+ 45 Êf2 Ëd2+ 46 Êg3 Ëd6+
47 Êh4 Íe6 48 Ëc3 Îd4! 49 g4 Ëe5 50
Ëa3+ Êd7 51 Ëe3 h5 52 Îf4 hxg4 53
hxg4 Íc4 0-1
Game 2 D.Gormally-A.Cherniaev
London 2009
1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6 3 Ìc3 e5 4 Ìf3 e4 5
Ìg5 Ëe7 6 Ëc2 Íf5
A less-risky approach than Volo-
kitin’s 6...Ìc6!?. It does still entail a
pawn sacrifice, but Black no longer has
to be worried by ideas of d4-d5.
W________W [rhWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDbHW] [WDP)pDWD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)QDP)P)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
7 g4
The most principled and also the
sharpest continuation. Others:
a) 7 f3 also leads to very complex
play, where Black generally has fair
compensation after 7...Ìc6 8 fxe4 (8 d5
Ìe5 9 Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 10 Ìxe4 g6 11
Ëa4+ Íd7 12 Ëb3 Íg7 13 Ëxb7 Îc8
14 e3 0-0 15 Íe2 Íf5 16 0-0 Îb8 17
Ëa6 Íxe4 18 fxe4 Ìd7 19 Íf3 Ìc5 20
Ëa5 Íxb2 21 Íxb2 Îxb2 22 Ëxa7
Îfb8 gave Black a perfectly acceptable
position in L.Pytlik-J.Vozda, correspon-
dence 2003) 8...Íg6.
W________W [rDWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)PDWD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)QDPDP)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
Black has sacrificed a pawn, but
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
13
keeps White’s centre under strong
pressure. Now:
a1) 9 d5 Ìe5 10 g3 c6 11 Íg2 Ìxc4
12 dxc6 bxc6 13 Ëa4 Ìe5 14 0-0 Ìfd7
15 Íe3 Ëd8 16 Ìf3 Íe7 17 Ìxe5
Ìxe5 18 Íd4 Ëd7 19 Îad1 Ëb7 20
Ìd5 Íd8 21 Ìf4 Íb6 22 Êh1 Íxd4 23
Îxd4 Îd8 24 Îfd1 0-0 25 Íf3 Ëxb2 26
Îxd6 Îxd6 27 Îxd6 Ëb6 28 Ëd1 Îe8
led to an approximately equal position
in I.Sharpe-A.Cherniaev, British League
2007.
a2) 9 e3 0-0-0 10 a3 d5! 11 cxd5
Ìxd5 12 Ìf3 Ìxc3 13 bxc3 Íxe4 14
Íd3 f5 15 0-0 g6 16 Íxe4 fxe4 17 Ìd2
Íh6 18 Îe1 was A.Cherniaev-
M.Cornette, Geneva 2006, and here
18...Îhe8 deserved attention, followed
by ...Ëh4 and ...Îd5-h5. That game
made me realize that this whole varia-
tion had been rather underestimated.
a3) 9 Ìd5? Ìxd4! 10 Ëa4+ Ëd7 11
Ìxc7+ Êd8 is a little trap which has
caught out a few players.
W________W [rDWiWgW4] [0pHqDp0p] [WDW0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [QDPhPDWD] [DWDWDWDW] [P)WDPDP)] [$WGWIBDR] W--------W
After 12 Ìb5 (12 Ëd1 Êxc7 13
Ëxd4 h6 14 Ìh3 Íxe4 15 Íf4 Ëa4
was also better for Black in B.Annakov-
V.Vorotnikov, Moscow 1996) 12...Ìxe4
13 Ëd1 Ìxb5 14 cxb5 Ëxb5 15 Ìxe4
Íxe4 16 e3 Ëe5 17 Íd2 Íe7 18 Ëa4
Íh4+ Black already had a decisive ad-
vantage in I.Glek-V.Zhuravliov,
Blagoveschensk 1988.
b) 7 e3 leads to a more established
pawn structure, where each opponent
mostly plays on the flank where he has
a space advantage: for example, 7...h6
8 Ìh3 c6 9 Íd2 Ëd7 10 Ìf4 g5 11
Ìfe2 d5 12 c5 Ìa6! (12...Íg7 13 b4) 13
a3 Ìc7 14 b4 h5 15 Îb1 h4 16 h3 Íh6
17 Ìc1 Ìe6 18 Ëa4 0-0 19 b5 Íg6 20
bxc6 bxc6 21 Îb4 Ìh5 22 Ìb3 Îae8!
23 Ìa5 Ìd8 with counterplay,
N.Giffard-T.Manouck, Puteaux 1980.
7...Íg6!
To take the pawn either way is
worse:
a) 7...Íxg4 8 Ìgxe4 Ìbd7 9 Íg2 c6
10 Íf4 Ìxe4 11 Ìxe4 Íf5 12 Ìxd6+
Ëxd6 13 Ëxf5 Ëxd4 14 0-0 g6 15 Îad1
with advantage for White, P.Haba-
R.Lau, Austrian League 1998.
b) 7...Ìxg4 8 Ìgxe4 is also good for
White.
Black wants to maintain his cramp-
ing e-pawn for as long as possible.
8 Íg2
After 8 Ìd5 Ìxd5 9 cxd5 Ìd7 10
Ëxc7 Ìf6 11 Ëc4 Ìxg4 12 Ëb5+ Êd8
13 Íg2 e3 Black had the better chances
in F.Gonzalez Velez-V.Jansa, Benasque
1999.
8...Ìc6
8...e3?! is an interesting but likely
insufficient idea: 9 Ëa4+! c6 10 Íxe3
The New Old Indian
14
Ìxg4 11 Íf4 Ìf6 12 c5!? (12 d5 Ëd7
13 dxc6 Ìxc6 14 Îd1 is also better for
White), with the idea of 12...dxc5 13 d5
Ëd7 14 Íxb8 with a decisive advan-
tage for White.
W________W [rDWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDPD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)QDP)B)] [$WGWIWDR] W--------W
9 e3
In this critical position, White also
has:
a) 9 d5 Ìe5 (not 9...Ìd4?! 10 Ëd1!)
10 Ìgxe4 (10 Ëa4+ leads to an ap-
proximately equal endgame after
10...Ëd7 11 Ëxd7+ Êxd7 12 Ìgxe4
Ìxe4 13 Ìxe4, as in E.Gasanov-
V.Varavin, Alushta 2001, and then
13...Ìxg4 14 Ìg3 h5) 10...Ìxe4 11
Íxe4 (11 Ìxe4 Ìxg4 12 h3 was pre-
ferred in J.Lautier-B.Gulko, Horgen
1995, and here 12...Ìe5!? requires test-
ing: for example, 13 h4 h6 14 h5 Íh7
15 Íf4 0-0-0 is about equal) 11...Ìxg4
12 h4 (after 12 Ëa4+ Êd8!? White
should take care about his own king
and 13 Ëc2 Ëh4 14 e3 Íe7 15 Ëe2
Ìxf2 16 Ëxf2 Íxe4 led to a decisive
advantage for Black in I.Kutsyk-
V.Savon, Alushta 1999) 12...0-0-0 13 f3
Ìe5 14 h5 Íxe4 15 Ëxe4 (A.Vaisser-
S.Belkhodja, Meudon 1990) 15...Ëd7 is
about equal. Black will expand with
...f5 followed by ...Íe7-f6.
b) 9 Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 10 Íxe4 Ìxd4 11
Ëd3 (11 Ëa4+ Ëd7 12 Ëxd7+ was un-
helpfully agreed drawn in
A.Shariyazdanov-E.Dizdarevic, Pula
1999) 11...Ìe6 12 Íe3 Ëh4 13 h3 Íe7
14 0-0-0 Íg5 15 Íxg5 Ëxg5+ 16 Ëd2
Ëxd2+ 17 Îxd2 Íxe4 18 Ìxe4 ½-½
I.Farago-F.Gheorghiu, Baile Herculane
1982. Clearly Black has no problems
here.
c) 9 Ìd5 deprives Black of castling
rights, at the cost of a pawn, and leads
to interesting and complex play.
W________W [rDWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhbD] [DWDNDWHW] [WDP)pDPD] [DWDWDWDW] [P)QDP)B)] [$WGWIWDR] W--------W
After 9...Ìxd4 (worse is 9...Ìxd5 10
cxd5 e3 because 11 Ëa4 Ëxg5 12 Íxe3
Ëxg4 13 Íf3 gives White the better
chances) 10 Ëa4+ Ëd7 11 Ìxc7+ Êd8
12 Ëd1 (preferable to 12 Ëxd7+ Êxd7
13 Ìxa8 Ìc2+ 14 Êd1 Ìxa1 15 Íe3
Íe7 16 Êd2 Îxa8 17 Îxa1 h6 18 Ìh3
Ìxg4 with a decisive advantage for
Black, W.Schmidt-T.Manouck, Bagneux
1981) 12...Êxc7! (12...Ëxc7 13 Ëxd4
Ëc5 14 Ëxc5 dxc5 15 h4 favours
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
15
White) 13 Ëxd4 Ëxg4 14 0-0 Íe7 15
Íe3 Îhd8 (preparing to bring the king
to safety via d7 and e8) 16 Îad1 b6 17
b4 Êd7 18 Ìxe4 Íxe4 19 f3 Ëg6 20
fxe4 Êe8 the situation is dynamically
balanced. Black has successfully evacu-
ated his king and wants to establish a
blockade on e5, but White’s long-range
pieces still have some potential.
W________W [rDWDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDPD] [DWHW)WDW] [P)QDw)B)] [$WGWIWDR] W--------W
9...0-0-0
Here Black has some virtually-
unexplored alternatives:
a) 9...Ìxg4 10 Ìgxe4 f5 11 Ìd5
Ëd7 12 Ìec3 (or 12 h3 Ìxe3 13 Íxe3
fxe4 14 Íxe4 0-0-0 15 Íxg6 hxg6 16
Ëxg6 Ìe7 17 Ìxe7+ Íxe7 18 Ëxg7
which gave Black kingside pressure and
compensation for the pawns in
G.Kallai-W.Schmid, Lenk 1989) 12...Íe7
13 Ìxe7 (after 13 Ëb3 Îb8 14 Íd2
Íh4 15 0-0 0-0 16 h3 Ìf6 17 Ìxf6+
Íxf6 18 Ìd5 Íg5 19 f4 Íh4 Black was
better in V.Hort-A.Miltner, German
League 1997) 13...Ëxe7 14 Ìd5 Ëd7 15
h3 Ìh6 16 Íd2 0-0 was played in
J.Ovchinikova-V.Varavin, Perm 1997. In
this position White continued with 17
f4?!, but this favoured Black as the e3-
pawn was weak after 17...Íh5 18 0-0
Êh8 19 Íc3 Îae8. Instead, White
should have chosen 17 Ìf4 Íf7 18
0-0-0, which would have given him an
edge.
b) 9...d5!? with the idea of ...Ìb4
also requires more testing.
W________W [WDk4WgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDn0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDPD] [DWHW)WDW] [P)QDW)B)] [$WGWIWDR] W--------W
10 h4
This leads to interesting complica-
tions and there doesn’t seem to be any-
thing better for White:
a) 10 Ìgxe4? is bad due to 10...d5!
11 cxd5 (not 11 Ìxd5? Îxd5 12 cxd5
Ìb4 13 Ëa4 Íxe4 with a decisive ad-
vantage for Black, T.Braun-A.Miltner,
Bad Wiessee 2002) 11...Ìb4 12 Ëb1
Ìbxd5 13 Ìxd5 (White was also in
some trouble after 13 f3 Ìxc3 14 bxc3
Ìxe4 15 fxe4 Ëh4+ in G.Borg-
E.Dizdarevic, Internet (blitz) 2003)
13...Îxd5 14 f3 h5 15 g5 Ìxe4 16 fxe4
Îxg5 was excellent for Black in
P.Skalik-V.Varavin, Anapa 1991.
b) 10 a3 Ìxg4 11 Ìgxe4 f5 12 Ìd5
Ëh4 13 Ìg3 Îe8 sees White fighting
for equality.
The New Old Indian
16
10...h6
10...Ìb4!? reaches another compli-
cated position which seems at least
okay for Black. The critical line is 11
Ëa4 Ìd3+ 12 Êe2 Êb8 13 h5, but after
13...Ìxg4 14 Ìgxe4 Íxe4 15 Ìxe4 f5
16 Êxd3 fxe4+ 17 Êe2 Ëf7 the safety
of his king is a problem for White.
11 h5 hxg5 12 hxg6 Îxh1+ 13 Íxh1
Ìb4 14 Ëa4 Ìd3+ 15 Êe2 Ëe6 16 f3
W________W [WDk4WgWD] [0p0WDp0W] [WDW0qhPD] [DWDWDW0W] [QDP)pDPD] [DWHn)PDW] [P)WDKDWD] [$WGWDWDB] W--------W
The critical moment in the game. I
spent much time here.
16...a6?!
Unfortunately not best. Instead
16...c5!? 17 Ìxe4 Ìxe4 18 fxe4 Ìb4 19
Íd2 Ëxc4+ with complex play or the
simple 16...fxg6 should have been pre-
ferred.
17 Ìxe4 Ìxe4 18 fxe4 Ìxc1+ 19 Îxc1
Ëxg4+ 20 Íf3 Ëg3 21 b4
Instead 21 gxf7 g4 22 Íh1 Ëh2+ 23
Êd3 Ëxb2 24 Ëc2 gives White a small
advantage.
21...g4 22 Íh1 Íe7 23 Ëd1 fxg6 24
Ëg1 Ëxg1 25 Îxg1 Îh8 26 Íg2 Íf6
By now I was short of time, but in
any case Black has no real chances to
play for a win.
W________W [WDkDWDW4] [Dp0WDW0W] [pDW0WgpD] [DWDWDWDW] [W)P)PDpD] [DWDW)WDW] [PDWDKDBD] [DWDWDW$W] W--------W
27 a4 Îh2 28 Êf1 Íg5 29 Êf2 Íh4+ 30
Êf1 Íg5 31 Êf2 Íh4+ 32 Êf1 ½-½
Game 3 T.Roussel Roozmon –
Z.Efimenko Montreal 2005
1 d4 Ìf6 2 c4 d6 3 Ìc3 e5 4 Ìf3 e4 5
Ìg5 Ëe7
Now we will turn our attention to
those lines where White does not go
after the e4-pawn with 6 Ëc2.
W________W [rhbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDWD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)P)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
6 h4
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
17
White secures some space on the
kingside and ensures a comfortable
retreat square for his knight, but on the
other hand, this approach costs a
tempo and is potentially weakening.
Before exploring 6 h4, we should
mention too:
a) 6 g3 is another long-term strate-
gical move and was recommended in
NCO. After 6...h6 7 Ìh3 Black has:
a1) After 7...g5 the knight on h3 is
temporarily out of play, but the weak-
ening of the black kingside may begin
to tell: for example, 8 Íg2 Íf5 9 Ëb3
c6 10 0-0 Íg7 11 f3 0-0 12 Ìf2 exf3 13
exf3 Ìa6 14 g4 Íe6 15 d5 Ìc5 16 Ëd1
cxd5 17 cxd5 Íd7 18 Îe1 Ëd8 19 Íe3
Îe8 20 b4 Ìa6 21 Ëb3 slightly favours
White, S.Savchenko-V.Zhuravliov, St
Petersburg 1992.
a2) With 7...g6 Black keeps a solid
position on the kingside, albeit without
limiting the further movement of
White’s knight. After 8 Íg2 Íg7 9 0-0
0-0 10 Ìf4 c6 11 f3 g5 12 fxe4!? (sacri-
ficing a piece for just two pawns, but
White also obtains a very strong pawn
centre – this idea in the spirit of the
Cochrane Gambit, 1 e4 e5 2 Ìf3 Ìf6 3
Ìxe5 d6 4 Ìxf7!?) 12...gxf4 13 gxf4
Êh8 14 f5 Îg8 15 Íf4 Ìh5 16 Íe3 Íf6
17 Íxh6 Íg5 18 e3 Íxh6 19 Ëxh5
White had full compensation for the
piece in B.Chatalbashev-Z.Jovanovic,
Rijeka 2007.
a3) 7...Íf5 allows White an interest-
ing manoeuvre in Ìf4-g2!?-e3 (recall-
ing Nimzowitsch!), in order to pressure
the d5-square: 8 Ìf4 c6 9 Ìg2 d5 10
Ìe3 Íe6 11 Íg2 Ëd7 12 a3 b5 13 b3
Ìa6 14 0-0 Ìc7 15 cxb5 cxb5 16 f3 was
a touch better for White in M.Hrivnak-
R.Hasangatin, Frydek Mistek 1997.
a4) The flexible 7...c6 might well be
best.
W________W [rhbDkgW4] [0pDW1p0W] [WDp0WhW0] [DWDWDWDW] [WDP)pDWD] [DWHWDW)N] [P)WDP)W)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
Now:
a41) After 8 Íg2 the bishop takes
the g2-square away from White’s
knight, so now it’s sensible to play
8...Íf5 9 e3 g5 10 Ìg1 (White should
spend some tempi to return the knight
to the action) 10...Íg7 11 Ìge2 Ìa6 12
a3 (Vadim Milov has successfully
played this position as White, but we
believe the reason for his good results
here is his high class, as objectively
White hasn’t any advantage here)
12...d5 13 cxd5 cxd5 14 Íd2 0-0 15 h3
Íe6 16 g4 Ìe8 17 Ìg3 Ìd6 18 f3 exf3
19 Íxf3 Ìc7 wasn’t at all easy to as-
sess in V.Milov-A.Zapata, Merida 2006.
a42) 8 Ìf4 g6 (again, if 8...g5 9 Ìg2
has the idea of Ìe3) 9 h4 (now 9 Ìg2
Íh3! is a very unusual way to ex-
change the light-squared bishops, but
The New Old Indian
18
it seems positionally desirable for
Black, as he will put his pawns on light
squares: 10 Ìe3 Íxf1 11 Êxf1 Íg7 12
b3 0-0 13 Ía3 a6 14 d5 c5 15 Îb1
Ìbd7 16 b4 cxb4 17 Íxb4 Îfc8 and
Black was better in R.Frombach-
G.Schebler, Werther 2006) 9...Íg7 10
e3 (this kind of set-up weakens the
light squares) 10...Ìa6 11 Íg2 0-0 12
b3 Íg4 13 Ëd2 Îfe8 14 Ía3 Ëd7 15
Îc1 Ìc7 16 Îc2 Îac8 17 Ìce2 d5 18
Ìc3 g5 and Black is better, F.Cruz-
D.Paunovic, La Roda 2009.
b) 6 Ìh3 c6 7 g3 h6 8 Ìf4 trans-
poses to variation ‘a42’.
c) 6 f3 is another principled way to
play. After 6...exf3 7 gxf3 White gets a
strong pawn centre, but the kingside is
somewhat weakened.
W________W [rhbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)WDWD] [DWHWDPDW] [P)WDPDW)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
c1) 7...h6 8 Ìh3 g5 leaves Black in
danger of over-extending. 9 Ìf2 c5 10
h4! gxh4 11 Îxh4 Ìc6 12 Ìd5 Ìxd5?
13 Îe4! saw him crashing to defeat in
Y.Yakovich-S.Novikov, Sochi 2006.
c2) 7...g6 is a more solid set-up: 8 e4
(or 8 Íg2 Íg7 9 0-0 Ìc6 10 e4 0-0 11
Íe3 Íd7 12 Ëd2 Îae8 13 Ìh3 Ëd8 14
Ìf2 Ìh5 – Black brings all his pieces
into the action and is now ready to
promote ...f5 – 15 f4 f5 16 e5 g5! with
advantage for Black in the model game
G.Andruet-M.Apicella, Rouen 1987)
8...Íg7 9 Ìh3!? (after 9 Íe3 0-0 10
Ëd2 c5 11 d5 h6 12 Ìh3 Íxh3 13
Íxh3 Ìxd5 14 Ëxd5 Ëh4+ Black has
the better chances, M.Ivanov-B.Heberla,
Marianske Lazne 2009), and now:
W________W [rhbDkdW4] [0p0W1pgp] [WDW0WhpD] [DWDWDWdW] [WDP)PDWD] [DWHWDPDN] [P)WDwDW)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
c21) The immediate 9...Íxh3?! is in-
correct, in view of 10 Íxh3 Ìxe4? 11
Ìxe4 Ëh4+ 12 Ìf2 Íxd4 13 0-0! with
a serious initiative for White.
c22) 9...0-0 10 Íg5 c6 11 Ëd2 gives
White a small advantage.
c23) 9...Ìc6 10 Íe3 Íxh3! (now this
seems correct) 11 Íxh3 Ìxe4 12 Ìxe4
Ëh4+ 13 Ìf2 0-0 14 0-0 Îae8 and Black
will regain his material with the upper
hand.
d) 6 e3 h6 7 Ìh3 g6 (7...c6 8 f3 g6 9
Ìf2 exf3 10 Ëxf3 Íg7 11 Íd3 0-0 12
0-0 Ìa6 13 Íd2 Ìc7 14 Îae1 Ìe6 was
about equal in C.Matamoros Franco-
F.Ribeiro, Cienfuegos 1996) 8 Ìf4 c6 9
Íe2 h5 (another thematic plan is
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
19
9...Ìa6 10 Îb1 Ìc7 11 h4 Íg7 12 b4 a6
13 a4 Ìe6 14 Ìxe6 Íxe6 15 Íb2 d5
with mutual chances, D.Del Rey-
R.Damaso, Santiago 1995) 10 h4 Íh6
11 Ëc2 0-0 12 g3 Ìa6 13 a3 Ìc7 14 b3
Îe8 15 Íb2 d5 16 a4 Íxf4 17 gxf4 Íg4
gives Black a promising game, R.Biolek-
V.Jansa, Czech League 2006.
Returning to 6 h4:
W________W [rhbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDW)] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)PD] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
6...h6
Black doesn’t have to push the
knight and 6...Íf5!? 7 g3 c6 (7...h6 8
Ìh3 c6 9 Ìf4 Ìa6 10 Ëa4 Ëd7 11 a3
Ìc7 12 Íg2 Íe7 13 Íe3 a6 14 Ëc2 d5
15 Ìa4 gave White a pull in
S.Conquest-J.Mercier, French League
1993) 8 Íg2 (or 8 Ëb3 h6 9 Ìh3 Ëd7
10 Ìf4 Íe7 11 Ìg2 d5 12 cxd5 cxd5 13
Ìf4 Ìc6 14 e3 Îd8 which was drawn
in B.Soos-H.Degenhardt, Hessen 1998)
8...h6 9 Ìh3 Ìbd7 10 Ìf4 g6 11 e3
Íg7 12 a3 Ìb6 13 b3 0-0 14 0-0 Îfe8
15 Íb2 d5 16 c5 Ìbd7 17 b4 g5 18
hxg5 hxg5 19 Ìh3 Íh6 20 Êh1 Êg7
gave Black good play in A.Galiano Mar-
tinez-P.Garre Murcia, Totana 2003.
7 Ìh3
W________W [rhbDkgW4] [0p0W1p0W] [WDW0WhW0] [DWDWDWDW] [WDP)pDW)] [DWHWDWDN] [P)WDP)PD] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
7...c6
This followed by ...Ìa6-c7 is the
most solid way to develop the queen-
side.
Black may also continue his devel-
opment on kingside: 7...g6 8 g3 (8 e3 c6
9 Íe2 Ìa6 10 b3 Ìc7 was fine too for
Black in C.Horvath-E.Dizdarevic, Pula
1998) 8...Íg7 9 Íg2 c6 10 Íf4 Íf5 11
Ëb3 0-0 12 0-0-0 Ìa6 13 f3 exf3 14
exf3 Ìh5 15 Îhe1 Ëc7 16 g4 Ìxf4 17
Ìxf4 Íc8 18 d5 Ìc5 19 Ëc2 a5 with an
even position, A.Gupta-B.Damljanovic,
Kavala 2009.
8 Íf4 Ìa6
Or 8...Ìh5!? as played by Gheorghiu
himself: 9 e3 g6 10 Íe2 Ìxf4 11 Ìxf4
Ìd7 12 Íg4 Îg8 13 Íxd7+ Íxd7 14
Ëb3 0-0-0 15 a4 g5 16 hxg5 hxg5 17
Ìfe2 Íg7 18 a5 Îh8 19 Îg1 f5 with
some advantage to Black in R.Douven-
F.Gheorghiu, Amsterdam 1986.
9 e3 Íf5 10 Ëa4 Ëd7 11 0-0-0 Íg4?!
This helps White to develop his play.
Black should simply continue his de-
velopment with 11...Íe7 followed by
...Ìc7 and ...0-0. Moreover, in the case
The New Old Indian
20
of 12 f3 he has an interesting reply in
12...g5!? 13 Íg3 (13 hxg5?! hxg5 14
Íxg5 exf3 exploits the knight’s posi-
tion on h3) 13...g4!? with complex play.
12 Îd2 Ìc7 13 Ìg1!
With the idea of f2-f3 – a simple
and effective approach.
13...a6?
Black should have acknowledged his
error and returned with 13...Íf5.
14 f3 exf3 15 gxf3 Íe6 16 Ëa5 b5 17
d5 Íf5 18 e4 Ìh5 19 Ìge2 b4 20 Ìa4
Îb8 21 dxc6 Ëxc6
W________W [W4WDkgW4] [DWhWDp0W] [pDq0WDW0] [!WDWDbDn] [N0PDPGW)] [DWDWDPDW] [P)W$NDWD] [DWIWDBDR] W--------W
22 exf5?
Black’s position is very loose and 22
Ìd4 would have led to a decisive ad-
vantage for White.
22...Ìxf4 23 Ìd4 Ëb7 24 Íd3 Ìxd3+
25 Îxd3 Íe7 26 Îe1 Êf8 27 f6?
Missing 27 Ìc5 dxc5 28 Îxe7, again
with a decisive advantage for White.
27...Íxf6 28 Ìf5 Ëc6 29 Êb1?
And here 29 Ìxd6 have been quite
unclear.
29...Ëxc4 30 Îxd6 Îb5 31 Ìb6 Îxa5
32 Ìxc4 Îxf5 33 Îc6 Íd8 34 Îd6 Íe7
35 Îd7 Ìe6 36 Ìe3 Îe5 37 Îc1 Îxe3
38 Îc8+ Íd8 39 Îcxd8+ Ìxd8 40
Îxd8+ Îe8 0-1
Game 4 G.Kasparov-J.Speelman
Belfort 1988
1 d4 d6 2 c4 e5 3 Ìf3 e4 4 Ìg5 Ìf6
With this move order Black can also
consider 4...f5!?. The text brings play
back into our repertoire.
5 Ìc3 Íf5
At first this seems more logical than
the clumsy 5...Ëe7, but now Black
might encounter the immediate 6 g4
and his queenside is weakened in the
event of an early Ëb3.
6 g4
W________W [rhW1kgW4] [0p0WDp0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDbHW] [WDP)pDPD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)W)] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
A critical test. See Game 5 for
White’s other possibilities.
6...Íxg4
The main continuation. Other
moves haven’t given Black a fully satis-
factory game:
a) 6...Ìxg4 7 Ìgxe4 and then:
a1) 7...Íe7 8 Íg2 Íh4?! activates
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
21
the bishop, but after 9 h3 Ìf6 10
Ìxf6+ Ëxf6 11 Ìd5 Ëd8 12 Ëb3 Íc8
Black was in full retreat and 13 Ëe3+
Êf8 14 Íd2 Ìc6 15 0-0-0 gave White
the better chances in A.Moiseenko-
O.Romanishin, Alushta 2005.
a2) 7...Íxe4?! 8 Ìxe4 d5 9 cxd5
Ëxd5 10 Íg2 Ëa5+ 11 Íd2 Ëa6 12 h3
followed by 13 0-0 and 14 Îc1 or per-
haps 14 a4 and 15 b4 is good for White.
a3) 7...c6 is probably a bit stronger,
albeit not enough to equalize: 8 h3 Ìf6
9 Ìxf6+ Ëxf6 10 e4 Íg6 11 h4 h6 12
Íe3 Ëd8 13 h5 Íh7 14 Ëf3 Ìd7 15
0-0-0 was a touch better for White in
D.Komarov-O.Romanishin, Saint Vin-
cent 2000.
a4) 7...Ìc6 8 Íg2 Íe7
W________W [rdW1kdW4] [0p0Wgp0p] [WDn0WdWD] [DWDWDbdW] [WDP)NDnD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)B)] [$WGQIwDR] W--------W
9 Ìg3! (the critical approach,
whereas after 9 b4 Íh4 10 e3 0-0 11 a3
Îe8 12 0-0 Íxe4 13 Ìxe4 Îxe4 14
Íxe4 Íxf2+ 15 Îxf2 Ìxf2 16 Íxh7+
Êxh7 17 Ëh5+ Êg8 18 Êxf2 Ëf6+ 19
Êg2 Ëe6 20 c5 dxc5 Black was better in
A.Nozdrin-G.Glidzhain, Ufa 2007)
9...Íg6 10 h3 Ìf6 11 e4 Ëd7 12 Íe3 a6
13 Ëe2 0-0 14 0-0 h6 15 f4 left White
clearly better in G.Kasparov-Allen &
Overy, London (simul) 1993.
b) Perhaps taking with the knight
isn’t so bad if followed up precisely, but
6...Íg6?! 7 Íg2 is definitely good for
White:
W________W [rhW1kgW4] [0p0WDp0p] [WDW0WhbD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDP)] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)WD] [$WGQIBDR] W--------W
b1) 7...Ìxg4 8 Ìgxe4 f5 9 Ìg5 c6 10
Íf4 Ëd7 11 d5 c5 12 Ìb5 Ìa6 13 Ëa4
with the initiative for White in C.Van
Tilbury-D.Johansen, Bled Olympiad
2002.
b2) 7...c6 8 Ìgxe4 Ìxg4 9 Ëb3 Ëc7
10 Íf4 f5 11 Ìc5 already with some
advantage for White in P.Morais Pinto-
H.Freitas, Brazil 1998.
b3) 7...Ëe7 8 h4!? (instead 8 Ëc2
would take play back into Game 2)
8...h5 9 gxh5 Îxh5 10 Íf4 (or 10 Ìh3
Îxh4 11 Íg5 Îg4 12 Ìd5 Ëd7 13 Íxf6
Îxg2 14 Ìe3!, as in J.Bellon Lopez-
J.Hodgson, Dos Hermanas 1992, and
now 14...Îxf2 15 Ìxf2 gxf6 with a
slight advantage for White) 10...c6 11
Ëb3 Ìa6 (again, if 11...d5 12 c5 Íf5 13
f3 Ìa6 14 fxe4 dxe4 15 Îf1 0-0-0 16
Íd6 Ëd7 17 Íxf8 Îxf8 18 Îxf5 Ëxf5
19 Íh3 and White is better,
The New Old Indian
22
M.Lomineishvili-V.Vorotnikov, Moscow
1996) 12 0-0-0 and if 12...0-0-0 then 13
c5! dxc5? 14 Íh3+ shows that both
kings are not equally safe on the
queenside.
7 Íg2
This move prepares to bring the
bishop to e4, but 7 Ìgxe4 is the main
line. We’ll see this in Game 6 where the
position arises from a 5 Ìd2 move or-
der.
W________W [rhW1kgW4] [0p0WDp0p] [WDW0WhWD] [DWDWDWHW] [WDP)pDbD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)B)] [$WGQIWDR] W--------W
7...Íe7
7...Ìc6!? is a good alternative: 8
Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 (8...Íe7 gives White the
option of 9 Ìg3!?) 9 Íxe4 (for 9 Ìxe4
see note ‘a’ to Black’s 8th move in
Game 6, below) 9...g6!? (this move was
recommended by Kasparov in BCO; in-
stead 9...Ëd7 10 Ëb3 Îb8 11 Íe3 Ìe7
12 d5 b6 13 Îg1 g6 14 Íd4 Îg8 15
Íd3 f5 16 Îxg4! fxg4 17 Ìe4 gave
White an attack in Y.Yakovich-
A.Kharlov, Vladivostok 1994) 10 Ëd3 (if
10 h3 Íd7) 10...f5 11 h3 Íh5 12 Íg2
Íg7 13 Ìd5?! Íxd4 14 Ìf4 Ëf6 15
Ìxh5 gxh5 16 Íxc6+ bxc6 17 Ëf3 Êd7
18 Ëxh5 Îae8 with advantage for
Black, J.Rudd-A.Cherniaev, Brighton
2011.
However, 7...c6 8 Ìgxe4 (or 8 Ëb3
Ëb6 9 Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 10 Ìxe4 Ëxb3 11
axb3 Êd7 12 Íd2 Ìa6 13 Îa5! f6 14
Îg1 Ìc7 15 Ìc3 b6 16 Îa1 Íe6 17 d5
cxd5 18 cxd5 Íf7 19 Íh3+ Êd8 20 Îg4
with a dangerous initiative in
L.Yurtaev-V.Zhuravliov, Leningrad
1989) 8...Íe7 (8...Ìbd7?! 9 Ëd3 is ex-
cellent for White) 9 Ëb3 Ìxe4 (9...Ëd7
10 Ìg3 0-0 11 h3 Íe6 12 e4 Ëc7 13 a4
Ìa6 14 0-0 Ëb6 15 Ëxb6 axb6 16 b3
slightly favours White too,
J.Brenninkmeijer-H.Ree, Amsterdam
1988) 10 Ìxe4 Ëd7 11 Ìg3 (with the
idea of 12 h3 Íe6 13 d5; instead 11
Ëg3 0-0 12 Îg1 Íf5 13 Íh3 g6 14
Íxf5 Ëxf5 15 Ìxd6 Ëe6 16 c5 b6 17
Íg5 f6 18 Ëe3 Ëxe3 19 Íxe3 Íxd6 20
cxd6 Ìd7 was okay for Black in
V.Eingorn-A.Suetin, Tallinn 1980)
11...Ëc7 12 0-0 0-0 13 Íf4 was a touch
better for White in J.Pinter-C.McNab,
Malta Olympiad 1980.
8 Ìgxe4 Ìxe4 9 Íxe4
W________W [rhW1kdW4] [0p0Wgp0p] [WDW0WdWD] [DWDWDWdW] [WDP)BDbD] [DWHWDWDW] [P)WDP)w)] [$WGQIWDR] W--------W
9...c6
Gheorghiu’s 4 . . .e4
23
Here 9...Ìc6 doesn’t give an equal
game: 10 Îg1 (or the immediate 10
Íe3!?) 10...Ëd7 11 Íe3 left White
clearly better in A.Lastin-N.Kurenkov,
Moscow 2007.
10 Ëd3! Íh5
Not 10...Ìd7? 11 Íxh7!, netting an
extra pawn.
W________W [rhW1kDW4] [0pDWgp0p] [WDp0WDWD] [DWDWDWDb] [WDP)BDWD] [DWHQDWDW] [P)WDP)W)] [$WGWIWDR] W--------W
11 Ëh3
White opts to double his opponent’s
pawns and create a hole on e6. This is
by no means forced, however:
a) 11 Îg1 is well met by 11...Íg6 12
f4 d5!.
b) 11 Íf4! Íg6 12 0-0-0 is simple
and strong, giving White an edge after
12...Ìa6 (12...Ìd7!? may improve; then
13 Ëg3! Ìf6 14 Íf3 has the idea of h2-
h4 with a slight advantage for White)
13 h4! (or 13 Íxg6 hxg6 14 d5 Îh4 15
e3 Ëa5 16 Êb1 Îc8 17 Íg3 Îh5 18 e4
and White has slightly the better
chances, J.Brenninkmeijer-A.Blees,
Hilversum 1989), and now:
b1) 13...Íxh4 14 Íxg6 fxg6 15
Ëe4+! Êf7 16 Íxd6 gives White a
small advantage.
b2) 13...Ëd7!? 14 h5 Íxe4 15 Ëxe4
slightly favours White too.
b3) 13...d5 14 cxd5 Ìb4 15 Ëe3
cxd5? (not 15...Ìxd5? 16 Íxd5 cxd5 17
h5 Íf5 18 Ëe5 with a decisive advan-
tage for White) 16 Íxg6 hxg6 17 a3
Ìc6 18 Ëf3 Îh5 19 e4! favours White,
L.Polugaevsky-J.Hickl, European Team
Championship, Haifa 1989.
11...Íg6
Black should avoid 11...Íh4? be-
cause of 12 Îg1. Then 12...0-0? runs
into 13 Íg5! when White wins mate-
rial.
12 Íxg6 fxg6 13 Íf4 0-0!?
Speelman wants to use the half-
open f-file, but there was nothing
wrong with the solid 13...Ëd7.
W________W [rhW1W4kD] [0pDWgW0p] [WDp0WDpD] [DWDWDWDW] [WDP)WGWD] [DWHWDWDQ] [P)WDP)W)] [$WDWIWDR] W--------W
14 e3
Probably a bit more precise was 14
Íg3 which doesn’t give Black the pos-
sibility of ...g6-g5, while retaining the
option to advance with e2-e4.
Instead 14 Ëe6+ Êh8 15 Íg3 Ìa6
16 h4 Îf5 17 0-0-0 was about equal
when L.Psakhis-J.Hickl, Dortmund 1989,
was agreed drawn.
The New Old Indian
24
14...Ìa6
14...Îf5!? 15 0-0-0 Ìd7 16 Íg3 Ëa5
17 e4 Îf7 isn’t at all easy to assess.
15 0-0-0 Ìc7 16 Êb1 a6 17 Ìe4?
Better is 17 Êa1! with slight advan-
tage for White, due to the idea of
17...b5 18 c5.
17...g5! 18 Íg3 Ëe8! 19 Êa1 Ëg6 20
Ëg2 Ìe8 21 Îdg1 b5 22 c5 dxc5 23
Ìxc5 Íxc5 24 dxc5 Îd8 25 h4!?
W________W [WDW4n4kD] [DWDWDW0p] [pDpDWDqD] [Dp)WDW0W] [WDWDWDW)] [DWDW)WGW] [P)WDW)QD] [IWDWDW$R] W--------W
25...gxh4
Black can also play 25...g4 and if 26
h5 Ëe6 27 Íh4 then 27...Îd5 28 Ëxg4
Ëxg4 29 Îxg4 Îxh5 when his chances
in the endgame are not worse.
26 Îxh4 Îd2 27 Îd4 Îe2
Instead 27...Îxd4? 28 exd4 leaves c6
rather weak.
28 Ëh1!? Ëc2 29 Îb1 Ëxc5 30 Ëe4
Ìf6 31 Ëe6+ Êh8 32 Íe5
32 Íd6? Ëxd4! 33 Íxf8 Ëd7 was
excellent for Black, with the idea of 34
Íg7 Ëg7 with a decisive advantage.
32...h6!
Speelman remains alert and avoids
32...Îxf2? 33 Íd6.
33 Îh1 Îxf2 34 a3
Preparing Íd6, since 34 Íd6 would
have been met by 34...Ëh5! 35 Îdd1
Ëf7!.
34...Ëc2! 35 Îdh4
W________W [WDWDW4Wi] [DWDWDW0W] [pDpDQhW0] [DpDWGWDW] [WDWDWDW$] [)WDW)WDW] [W)qDW4WD] [IWDWDWDR] W--------W
35...Ëg6?
Black was frightened of nonexistent
threats, but that’s quite understand-
able when one is low on time and up
against Kasparov!
Instead after 35...Ëf5 36 Ëe7 Êg8
37 e4 Ëg6 38 Ëe6+ Ëf7 39 Ëxc6 Ëd7
Black is consolidating and has good
chances to realize his extra pawn, since
if 40 Ëxa6? then 40...Ìg4.
36 Ëxc6 Ëf5 37 Îf4! Îxf4 38 exf4 Êh7
39 Îg1 Îf7 40 Ëxa6 b4! 41 Ëc4 Ìd7!
½-½
Here 42 Ëxb4 Ìxe5 43 fxe5 Ëxe5
leads to an absolutely equal position.
Game 5 B.Gulko-J.Benjamin US Championship, Long Beach 1993
1 c4 e5 2 Ìc3 Ìf6 3 Ìf3 d6 4 d4 e4 5
top related